Karnataka High Court
Bhanudas S/O. Bapu Jadhav vs Laxman S/O. Tanaji Desai on 25 June, 2020
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.104073/2017
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NOS.104071/2017
& 104072/2017 (GM-AC)
IN W.P.NO.104073/2017
BETWEEN
KUMARI. SAKSHI D/O. SAMPATH
@ SAMPATHRAO JADHAV
AGE:7 YEARS,
OCC:SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY M/G FATHER
SAMPATH @ SAMPATHRAO S/O. GANPATI JADHAV
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE
R/O:HINDALGA TAL:DIST:BELAGAVI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADV.)
AND
1. LAXMAN S/O. TANAJI DESAI
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:SERVICE
R/O. A/P:ARAG, TAL:MIRAJ
DIST:SANGLI
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANJAY S KATAGERI FOR R1, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.M.Y.KATAGI, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED:04.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.223/2016 BY
THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI AND COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-"E".
IN W.P.NO.104071/2017
BETWEEN
BHANUDAS S/O. BAPU JADHAV
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:LABOUR
R/O:HINDALGA
TAL & DIST:BELAGAVI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADV.)
AND
1. LAXMAN S/O. TANAJI DESAI
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:SERVICE
R/O. A/P:ARAG,
TAL:MIRAJ, DIST:SANGLI
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.M Y KATAGI, ADV. FOR: R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED:04.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.221/2016 BY
THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI AND COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-"E".
3
IN W.P.NO.104072/2017
BETWEEN
HINDURAO S/O. GANAPATI JADHAV
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:LABOUR
R/O:BACHI, TAL & DIST:BELAGAVI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VITTHAL S TELI, ADV.)
AND
1. LAXMAN S/O. TANAJI DESAI
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:SERVICE
R/O. A/P:ARAG, TAL:MIRAJ
DIST:SANGLI
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.M.Y.KATAGI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE
ORDER DATED:04.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.224/2016 BY
THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI AND COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-"E".
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DUE TO COVID-19,
THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
COMMON ORDER
All these writ petitions involve common question of fact and law and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the three writ petitions are heard together and disposed by this common order.
2. All these writ petitions are by the claimants in MVC No.221/2016, MVC No.223/2016 and MVC No.224/2016 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short, 'the Tribunal') )challenging the orders dated 04.03.2017 by which the claim petitions are returned to present the same before the proper Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the insurer in all the three writ petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed before the Tribunal 5 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimants. All the three claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for the accidental injuries sustained out of the same accident. The petitioners submit that the accident had taken place between the motorcycle bearing No.MH-10/AT-6480 and Maruti Swift Dzire Car No.MH-10/BA-9192, within the jurisdiction of Miraj Rural Police Station. The insurance policy had been taken in respect of the vehicles in question at Sangli. But the claim petitions were filed before the MACT, Belagavi stating that the petitioners as on the date of filing the petitions were residing at Hindalaga, Belagavi Distrit, showing the insurer of Belagavi branch as respondent No.2.
5. On issuance of notice on the claim petitions, the insurer as well as the owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal filed their respective objections. In the objection statement, the insurer as well as the owner 6 had taken a contention that the claim petitions before the Tribunal at Belagavi would not be maintainable since the place of accident and issuance of policy was at Miraj. Further, it contended that the insured and the claimants are the permanent residents of Miraj. No material whatsoever is placed on record to establish that they are residents of Belagavi.
6. The Tribunal by the impugned order returned the claim petitions with a direction to present the same before the proper Court, against which present writ petitions are filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit referring to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act that the claimants could file claim petition either at the local limits where the accident had occurred or at the claims Tribunal where the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. It is his submission 7 that the insurer has office at Belagavi and as on the date of filing the claim petitions, the claimants were residing at Hindalaga, Belagavi. Therefore, the claim petitions are maintainable. Further, the learned counsel also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 3 SCC 43 in the case of Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2016 SCC Online KAR 7953 in the case of Rajaraj and others Vs. Uttam and Others, 2018 (4) KLJ 481 in the case of Naveen Kumar Vs. A.Mohammed Saleem and Others, 2018 AAC 1899 (KAR) in the case of Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. A.Rajendra and Others, to contend that the claim petitions were maintainable at Belagavi, even though accident had taken place at Miraj, Maharashtra State.
8. With regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners would 8 submit that the Tribunal has not dismissed the claim petitions and it had returned the claim petitions for submitting it before the proper Court. There is no adjudication of the claim and no award is passed. Hence, the writ petitions would be maintainable and no appeal would be maintainable. Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC would not be applicable in view of Rule 254 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petitions.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, Sri.M.Y.Katagi submits that the Tribunal has rightly returned the claim petitions to submit them before the proper Court. He submits that both the claimants and the insured are residing at Sangli and the Insurance policy is issued by respondent No.2 at Sangli. Therefore, the claim petitions ought to have been filed at Sangli and not at Belagavi. 9
10. The learned counsel, Sri.Sanjay S Katageri for respondent No.1-owner appearing through video conferencing would also supports the argument of the learned counsel, Sri.M.Y.Katagi. Thus, he also prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
11. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in returning the claim petitions for submission before the proper Court?
12. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:
13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. At the outset it is to be noticed that the claim petitions are returned for submitting the same before the proper Court before recording the evidence on the ground of want of jurisdiction. There was no 10 determination of the claim. If the Court returns a plaint for submission before the proper Court, Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC provides for an appeal. But, in the instant case, the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 254 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules makes it clear that Order 43 of CPC would not be applicable to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. As such no appeal would be maintainable. Hence, the writ petitions filed by the claimants are proper and maintainable.
14. Admittedly, the claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.11.2015 involving motorcycle bearing No.MH-10/AT-6480 and Maruti Swift Dzire Car No.MH-10/BA-9192 at Miraj-Bedag road within the limits of Miraj Rural Police Station. Insurance policy was issued in respect of the vehicles at Miraj. The 11 claimants have filed the claim petitions stating that as on the date of filing the petitions, they were residing at Hindalaga, Belagavi and as such they have approached the claims Tribunal at Belagavi.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Malati Saradar's case (supra) after considering Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with regard to territorial jurisdiction for filing claim petition, at paragraph Nos.14 and 16 has held as follows:
"14. We are thus of the view that in the face of the judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in the absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the Insurance Company which was the main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata.
16. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims 12 of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hypertechnical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting party in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar, contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC."
16. By following the above decision, in Naveen Kumar's case (supra), this Court in similar facts i.e. where the accident had taken place at Tamilnadu and where both the claimants and the insured were residing at Tamilnadu and the claim petition having filed before the claims Tribunal at Bengaluru, held that the claim 13 petition at claims Tribunal at Bengaluru would be maintainable. Relevant paragraphs No.12 and 13 reads as follows:
"12. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically observed that the provisions of accidents of negligent driving are benevolent provisions for the victim of the accident of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accident and Court should not be hyper technical while approaching the matter in such cases and there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the Insurance Company, which is the main contesting party in such cases has its business.
13. Admittedly, in the instant case on hand the respondent-Insurance Company is situated at Bengaluru, then under such circumstances, the Small Causes Court before whom the petition has been filed was having jurisdiction to entertain the said petition, but however erroneously without looking into the 14 decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has dismissed the petition."
17. In the instant case also, it is not disputed that the New India Assurance Company-the insurer of the offending vehicle is having its branch office at Belagavi. The claimants state that they are residing at Hindalaga at Belagavi. Both the above criteria would satisfy the requirement of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claims Tribunal at Belagavi would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in returning the claim petitions for presentation before the proper court. Hence, the orders dated 04.03.2017 passed in MVC No.221/2016, MVC No.223/2016 and MVC No.224/2016 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim petitions in accordance with law.
15
18. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SH